The House passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) yesterday 283 -136. The bill will make President Obama the first President since the red scare in the McCarthy era to sign a law to introduce indefinite detention in the US. It will keep the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, open potentially forever.

The Non Detention Act of 1971 was introduced specifically to address the indignities suffered by Japanese Americans interned during WW2 and the NDAA is the first bill to seek to actively turn that page back.

Ten years after the attacks of 9-11 with Osama Bin Laden finally removed from the equation, do we really need more draconian powers to undermine the liberties of US citizens? And why would we place that trust in this government, or blindly hand it to a future administration.

The bill’s supporters say it does not require the military detention of US citizens indefinitely in the US, but it also does nothing to protect their rights internationally. The bill does nothing to protect the country, it makes it more difficult to keep Americans safe at home and abroad. It creates a confusing landscape in which many of our best tools: FBI, law enforcement and courts are going to be less able to do what they do best to deal with terrorism.

“I still have concerns and uncertainties that are raised by the statute. Given the statute the way it is now, it does not give me a clear path to certainty as to what is going to happen when arrests are made in a particular case. And the facts are gray as they often are at that point.”

The utter confusion in Congress and among lawyers of the effect of this bill, underlines a deeper truth, that it creates confusion exactly where the bills supporters said we need certainty: potential adversaries need to know that domestic and external tools will be relentlessly aimed at them.

The bill muddies the waters, does nothing to protect Americans civil liberties, or national security. The bill does not protect anyone, and creates a double standard between the detention of citizens and non citizens, undermining the fundamental principle of equality before the law.

In the 1950s then Senator Kennedy wrote a book – “Profiles in Courage”, wags said he needed to show less profile and more courage. This administration shows neither profile nor courage. It is a purely political and tactical decision that creates a terrible precedent and undermines a core value.

It could be said that in the circumstances the White House made the best judgement it could when faced with tough political realities in the House and Senate. But when we look back it will be seen as yet another time when those we elected to lead, instead followed. And those we look to defend our values chose to erode them.

Does anyone really believe Ayman Al Zawahiri sleeps any less soundly today than yesterday? It makes not one ounce of difference to the essential struggle. But instead Al Qaeda can claim comfort knowing that we are chasing our tails and eroding our values.

]]>http://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/house-passes-ndaa-white-house-wont-veto-indefinite-detention/feed/38Indefinite Detention: 3 Conservative Voices of Reasonhttp://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/indefinite-detention-3-conservative-voices-of-reason/
http://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/indefinite-detention-3-conservative-voices-of-reason/#commentsTue, 06 Dec 2011 22:07:02 +0000http://blog.amnestyusa.org/?p=25483The House and Senate are locked in conference this week to thrash out the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2012. It’s a curious sign of the times that there are many conservative voices crying foul over the bill as well as progressive ones. Three in particular are worth noting.

Senator Rand Paul, cast one of the bravest votes last week against a bipartisan group that voted for the NDAA, one of the worst bills to cross the floor this year. It threatens to detain suspects indefinitely, undercuts the rights of US citizens, and sideline our best tools in countering terrorism in one fell swoop.

I don’t doubt the sincerity or passion of those on the opposing side, only their wisdom and their open ended faith in government. Those who place their blind faith and trust in government, and trust that authority will keep itself in check, are liable to find their liberties are eroded as surely as termites eat away an old wooden house.

Ten years after 9-11, with Osama Bin Laden safely ensconced at the bottom of the Indian Ocean, is it really time to give unlimited power to Washington to imprison American citizens? The threat still exists and is constantly morphing, but that is a reason for more debate and caution not less. Senator Paul said it best when he stated:

“If you allow the unlimited power to detain citizens without a jury trial, you are exposing yourself to the whims of those in power. That is a dangerous game.”

In the face of a welter of editorials and voices opposed to the detention provisions of the NDAA, Senate views remain locked, fixed and set in the wrong direction. The unfortunate truth is that there are many dedicated public servants who tried to address the detention issues in the two terms of the Bush administration and were ultimately unsuccessful, because this is not just a legal issue but a political question, and the politics of the issue are outrunning the facts on the ground. So it was with much interest that I read this piece by John Bellinger and Matt Waxman which highlights their concern over the NDAA. They say, more succinctly than I could:

“[The provisions outlined in the NDAA] could have a detrimental impact on U.S. counterterrorism operations. Indeed, while originally drafted by Senate Republicans, these legislative encroachments on the president’s authorities would likely have been as strongly opposed by the Bush administration as by the Obama administration. Any president–Democrat or Republican–would object to legislation that interferes this way with his flexibility in conducting the war against al-Qaeda.”

Many human rights groups, law enforcement and experts warned Congress that the most effective tools in addressing terrorism often lie in the least likely places. Unlike the fake antiheros of the hit TV show 24 the real front line in addressing terrorism lies with police, FBI and local law enforcement. Federal prosecutors have more experience in dealing with these issues than the bulk of those in the military system, because they have handled many many more complex cases dealing with terror conspiracies.

In the two exceptions–both early in its first term–where the Bush administration relied on military authorities and custody to detain al-Qaeda agents captured domestically (Jose Padilla and Ali Saleh al-Marri), it ultimately reverted to civilian detention and criminal prosecution because the legal risks of doing otherwise were too high. In those and other cases, counterterrorism officials across the government recognized that civilian criminal prosecution was more reliable and effective than military custody to handle terror suspects inside the United States.

Lastly the international community is often spurned by politicians who brag of never carrying a passport or going further than the confines of DC. But the reality is that we live in a complex interdependent world, that the US neither has the desire nor the will nor the wherewithall to police single handed. It is in the US vital national interest to have international cooperation in tackling terrorism; to hunt, chase – kill or apprehend terrorists and terror suspects. The NDAA does everything in its power to make that cooperation less likely.

Mandating military detention for categories of suspected terrorists could also jeopardize the ability of the United States to seek extradition of al-Qaeda suspects from other countries and hamper vital intelligence-sharing and law-enforcement cooperation by U.S. allies, who would be concerned that information they shared might be used to place individuals into military detention.

It’s asking too much for the House to add common sense and reason where the Senate so clearly failed. The House is not a deliberating moderating body. The last thing this debate needs is more vitriol and passion, and less judgement. The issue is simply too important to be cast to the winds, and the last best hope is for a White House veto – just like 4 other previous Presidents who vetoed the NDAA including Presidents Reagan and George W Bush.

A few weeks ago the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was condemned by Senator Reid as so draconian that he could not bring it to the floor. Now it’s back and with an authoritarian vengeance.

The bill has the necessary but perpetually complex objective of outlining the budget and expenditures of the Department of Defense.

This time around, a dubious, ill-informed, and unwise “agreement” has been reached between Senators Levin and McCain to include detention provisions that threaten to bring back internment for the first time since the McCarthy era at the height of the red scare.

The effort would threaten the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike, place terror suspects in mandatory military custody, and keep Guantanamo open in perpetuity.

The result is so insidious that the Chairs of the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, who are at the heart of every key issue in the struggle against Al Qaeda, wrote an instant public response condemning the deal.

“Regrettably, the so-called ‘agreement’ reached today in the Senate Armed Services Committee will only harm the efforts of intelligence and law enforcement officials to bring to justice those who would harm Americans here and abroad.”

If the bill is passed, law enforcement would be swept to the margins and forced to hand over suspects to an already overstretched and overburdened military.

The US military have great expertise, but finding, tracking and prosecuting terror suspects is not on their resume.

Ordinary beat cops, FBI agents and intelligence offices, and judges are the front line against terrorists, and we silence them at our own peril.

Domestic courts and law enforcement have an unmatched record in stopping terrorists and gathering intelligence. The ratio of domestic criminal convictions to military commissions is over 500 to 6. Why abandon a tool that works for the sake of pride?

A broad swath of Senators have already said they are opposed to the deal, and the White House and Jeh Johnson, the chief lawyer at the Department of Defense, have condemned the bill as unnecessary and unworkable.

The bill cut out all those with the common sense and experience on intelligence and law enforcement, those who know that the bill would be a disaster.

Feinstein and Leahy added,

“We have said before that these proposals are unwise, and will harm our national security. That is as true today as it ever has been.”

]]>http://blog.amnestyusa.org/americas/internment-in-the-us-not-on-our-watch/feed/8Stop the Ayotte Amendment and Support Fair Trialshttp://blog.amnestyusa.org/americas/stop-the-ayotte-amendment-and-support-fair-trials/
http://blog.amnestyusa.org/americas/stop-the-ayotte-amendment-and-support-fair-trials/#commentsThu, 20 Oct 2011 17:49:35 +0000http://blog.amnestyusa.org/?p=24674Update: We did it — thanks to your calls, the Senate successfully defeated Senator Ayotte’s amendment to ban fair trials for terror suspects! But the fight isn’t over. Please continue to help fight against other legislation that would keep Guantanamo open.

A new and dangerous amendment has been put on the appropriations omnibus bill on the Senate floor today — and now’s the time to pick up the phone and urge your Senators to vote no. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) has introduced an amendment to H.R. 2112 that would bar all federal trials for foreign terrorist suspects and goes further than any previous attempt to undermine the fight against terrorism.

If this amendment passes, it would be an unmitigated national security disaster, removing a keystone — federal trials — which serve to keep this country safe.

Federal trials have been one of the most successful tools to combat terrorism, and they have been used hundreds of times by previous US presidents, including George W. Bush. Federal trials have prosecuted more terror suspects than military commissions by a margin of over 500 to 5. The FBI, state and local police and other domestic agencies have been far more successful at thwarting terrorism than any other tool, and this amendment would threaten to effectively tie our hands behind our back.

The definition of character is to do the hard right, not the easy wrong. It’s a great punch line to say you are tough on terror and that we should just lock them all up and throw away the key. But if you can’t prosecute terror suspects then you can only hold them for the duration of the conflict — and then they get to walk free. Just think about all the terrorists we have prosecuted successfully in federal court, from Zacarias Moussaoui to Abdulmutallab, to Richard Reid and Ahmed Ghailani the embassy bomber — they are all in jail for the rest of their lives. We are all safer because the prosecutors, FBI and law enforcement officers, and border and customs officials put their lives on the line and serve everyday to keep terrorists off our streets and in jail.

Yesterday, we got some good news on human rights from Capitol Hill: Senate Majority leader Harry Reid threw down the gauntlet against indefinite detention provisions in this year’s National Defense Authorizations Act (NDAA). Reid declared he would not bring the new defense appropriations act to the floor unless provisions related to holding suspected terrorist detainees indefinitely were struck from the bill.

In response, Senator Reid has said that the issue should warrant its own hearings after calls from both the chairs of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees.

Sections 1031 and 1032 of the act would seek to hold any terrorism suspect indefinitely and place a subset of those captured in mandatory military detention. The current provisions are strongly opposed by the White House. John Brennan, the Deputy National Security Adviser, called “the language in the bill – a non starter”. The bill was due to come to the Senate floor in the coming weeks and if amendments are offered it could get even worse.

The bill both undermines the rights of US citizens and also sets up a dangerous double standard in which equality before the law — a bedrock principle — only applies to some and not others.

It would threaten the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike and would be the first time since the McCarthy era that Congress would consider a bill to indefinitely detain US citizens not charged with any crime.

Even in the Nixon era, legislation was specifically passed to prevent detention without charge, thanks to the tireless efforts of Japanese Americans who suffered horrible abuses as victims of internment after Pearl Harbor.

The situations are not analogous, and some of the bill’s supporters — including Senator McCain — are honest and honorable men. But this is not about the decency of those who would support the bill; it’s about the wisdom of introducing legislation that seeks to undermine fundamental rights.

The bill would in effect silence and sideline the most experienced prosecutors and law enforcement officers in the United States and place detainees of dubious distinction in the hands of an overstretched military which is all too often ill-equipped to handle the task.

Ten years after 9/11 we still live in fear of dark shadows in the night. Some threats are real and some fears are justified, but we live in a world of laws and rights built and fought for over generations for our own protection. Before we tear this apart, shouldn’t we at the very least be asking why?

]]>http://blog.amnestyusa.org/americas/reid-stands-against-indefinite-detention-in-senate-bill/feed/2Pakistani Journalist Disappeared and Found Dead After Criticizing Armed Forceshttp://blog.amnestyusa.org/freespeech/pakistani-journalist-disappeared-and-found-dead-after-criticizing-armed-forces/
http://blog.amnestyusa.org/freespeech/pakistani-journalist-disappeared-and-found-dead-after-criticizing-armed-forces/#commentsThu, 07 Jul 2011 14:53:54 +0000http://blog.amnestyusa.org/?p=22321As many of us were eating hot dogs, tending BBQs and watching fireworks to honor our fundamental freedoms, seven words in the New York Times caught my eye, “Pakistan’s spies tied to slaying of journalist“. Seven words among the several thousand that pass my eyes every day before I even reach for a cup of coffee, that made me think about the Constitution, and the struggle for human rights.

A forty year old journalist, Saleem Shazad, disappeared on May 29, after writing an exposé of an attack on a Pakistani military base which indicated collusion from inside the armed forces. Shazad’s body was found in a canal 60 miles from Islamabad. “Mr. Shahzad suffered 17 lacerated wounds delivered by a blunt instrument, a ruptured liver and two broken ribs, said Dr. Mohammed Farrukh Kamal, one of the three physicians who conducted the post-mortem.”, according to the Times, which said he was the 37th journalist to be killed in Pakistan since 9/11.

The Obama Administration believes that Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence directed the attack on him to silence his criticism. The Administration called the treatment of Shazad “barbaric”. Yet, if anyone is in any doubt Pakistan is a crucial ally of the United States and a democratic state. It remains the single most important regional country in the struggle against Al Qaeda, and the recipient of more than 20 billion dollars of US assistance since 9/11. These were not the crazed acts of frenzied tribesmen, they were the deliberate calculated acts of agents employed by the state.

There are many countries around the world in which press freedoms are under attack and where writers face the constant threat of violence and intimidation, just like them the treatment of Shazad was clearly meant as an example to all those wishing to exercise their most basic human rights and civil liberties.

It is too easy for us as we reach for the paper to flick through stories and discard them to the trash can. But once in a while, between cups of coffee and a quick flick through the travel section and the sports pages, it would be good to think about the cost of the freedoms that we cherish and those around the world that are still fighting to attain them.

]]>http://blog.amnestyusa.org/freespeech/pakistani-journalist-disappeared-and-found-dead-after-criticizing-armed-forces/feed/0Reflections on the Army, Torture and General Sanchezhttp://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/reflections-on-the-army-torture-and-general-sanchez/
http://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/reflections-on-the-army-torture-and-general-sanchez/#commentsWed, 19 Jan 2011 15:56:30 +0000http://blog.amnestyusa.org/?p=16875It is a cold and icy morning in DC and as I slipped and skidded my way to work I clutched the latest copy of Atlantic Monthly. There are two must reads in the issue for those really interested in national security and terrorism, but for me they read as two parts of the same story.

“An exclusive survey of West Point graduates shows that it’s not just money. Increasingly, the military is creating a command structure that rewards conformism and ignores merit.”

The January/February 2011 issue of the Atlantic Monthly.

The best and the brightest are serving but they are also leaving. The civilian sector is filled with great leaders who have served at all ranks of the military and sadly the military’s loss is society’s gain. But it is an important bellwether when great young people are driven out, and they leave not necessarily because they are lured by better offers, or because of fatigue with multiple deployments, but as a sign of their confidence in the system and who the system chooses to promote.

There are cycles in the life of all institutions and when an organization hits a trough, it often reflects poor leadership at the top, cynicism, and a sense of being part of what General Edward Meyer once called “a hollow army”.

The second piece is another ode to fate of General Ricardo Sanchez. (Truth in advertising – General Sanchez has backed a truth commission which Amnesty International also supports, and he has at times shared a stage with Amnesty supporters.)

There are aspects to his story that strike a chord; his admirable all American rise from very humble roots to be the highest ranking Hispanic officer of his generation, both of which speak to the Army’s relative meritocracy, and his personal determination. Unfortunately my admiration stops there. Ricardo Sanchez was complicit in one of the worst abuses in recent US military history, and worse, was part of an effort to sweep it under the carpet.

While he has acknowledged the need for accountability up the chain above him, and supported the need for a commission, he appears to have forgotten about his own substantial role in the occupation of Iraq and the abuses that followed. The transfer of interrogation techniques, including the use of dogs, from GTMO to Abu Ghraib happened on his watch and with his blessing. According to the Senate Armed Services Committee report on the treatment of detainees:

“Interrogation policies approved by Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, which included the use of military working dogs and stress positions, were a direct cause of detainee abuse in Iraq. “

The US military is many things, but it is not a rogue or ill disciplined organization, it is the reverse. It is for that reason that Abu Ghraib will always remain a strain on the US reputation, because we have never fully addressed the lie that it was entirely the work, the imagination and the actions of a few bad apples on a boring night shift.

As the bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee Report carefully noted in December 2008, the culture, the direction and the policies set by the Administration and the Rumsfeld Defense Department, at the highest reaches, fed and nurtured and fostered the abuse at the bottom.

“The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own. Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at GTMO. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely.”

The military is an organization built on the skeleton of the chain of command, and his part in the corruption of that chain is the lasting legacy of Ricardo Sanchez. He was not alone, nor was he the most, nor the least culpable. But when you assume any position of authority, along with that authority comes responsibility for your actions, and for those of your subordinates. Your wishes are their actions and their acts are your responsibility. When you look into the faces and conduct of your subordinates, you look into a mirror, and what you see is a reflection of your character and your leadership.

When he looks in the mirror I wonder what General Sanchez sees?

]]>http://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/reflections-on-the-army-torture-and-general-sanchez/feed/12Another Country, Another Assassinationhttp://blog.amnestyusa.org/asia/another-country-another-assasination/
http://blog.amnestyusa.org/asia/another-country-another-assasination/#commentsFri, 14 Jan 2011 21:04:43 +0000http://blog.amnestyusa.org/?p=16837It has been a week of tragic political violence in the United States, and as we collectively mourn our fellow citizens and brave public servants at home, it is sad but timely to recall that in another world the reaction to another assassination has been very different.

Salman Taseer, the Governor of Punjab was assassinated a week ago at the hands of his own bodyguard, in broad daylight, at Khosar market in Islamabad, a place popular with expats and elites. He was shot more than 20 times at close range, for the crime of defending a woman who was convicted under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws.

Pakistani policemen secure the site of a fatal attack on Salman Taseer by his bodyguard in Islamabad on January 4, 2011. Salman Taseer, outspoken against the Taliban and other Islamist militants was assassinated on January 4, apparently for opposing blasphemy laws. AAMIR QURESHI/AFP/Getty Images

Taseer, a progressive thoughtful voice for reform, of the Pakistan People’s Party, had filed a petition in defense of a Christian woman, Asia Bibi, who has been condemned to death for blasphemy, in a case that has sparked international controversy. Salman Taseer had also defended the rights of Pakistan’s Ahmadi community, who are ruled to be non Muslims, and spoke out against the misuse of the Constitution to persecute minorities.

It is a sad and disturbing comment on the current state of Pakistan that he died at the hands of those who were sent to protect him. It was shocking that arguably one of the most prominent politicians in the most prominent of states – Punjab, could be shot dead.

But the reaction in the wake of his death has been equally chilling. The Barelevi party, Jamaat Ahle Sunnat, issued a statement celebrating the killing and warning Pakistanis not to mourn Taseer’s death. And while thousands attended his funeral, the fear of violence was strong enough to keep President Asif Ali Zadari, from paying tribute, and public sentiment was strong enough to keep others like Nawaz Sharif from attending.

By contrast the 26 year old killer, Malik Mumtaz Qadri, was showered with petals, and feted by many members of the Lawyers Movement who had challenged the government of President Musharaf in 2007, and many others offered to defend him free of charge.

Acts of madmen do not speak for average Pakistanis anymore than they speak for average Americans. But as we honor the memory of Martin Luther King this weekend, and honor his legacy, we would do well to remember that human rights are still proclaimed at great sacrifice by people across the world in large acts and small in an unending tribute to reaffirm our common humanity.

The Senate is about to vote on an omnibus spending bill which includes a provision that would represent a major setback to the fight for human rights at Guantanamo. The provision bars the spending of federal funds to move any detainee – including Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – from Guantanamo to the US for any purpose, including trial, through September 2011.

The House passed the measure last week, even though most members did not realize the Guantanamo provision was part of the huge spending bill.

The Obama administration has opposed the measure. Last week Attorney General Eric Holder called the provision:

“an extreme and risky encroachment on the authority of the executive branch to determine when and where to prosecute terrorist subjects.”

This bill would stop the US from bringing terrorism suspects to justice in federal courts — the most experienced and proven forum. These are the very same federal courts that used by the Justice Department during the Bush and Obama administrations to convict more than 400 individuals of terrorism‐related crimes since 9/11. Only last month Guantanamo detainee Ahmed Ghailani was successfully convicted in a free and fair trial and will likely be jailed for the rest of his life.

Amnesty is not alone in calling on the Senate to vote against this provision. Last week a group of 17 military leaders wrote Congress, urging them “to oppose any restrictions proposed for inclusion in the fiscal year 2011 funding bill that would put politics before American values and national security and hinder the President from bringing suspected terrorists to justice.”

And many of our country’s leading national security and foreign policy experts – including General David Petraeus, General Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and five former Secretaries of State from both parties – believe that closing the Guantánamo Bay detention facility is essential to U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

There’s still time for us to pressure the Senate and block this provision, but we need you to call your Senators right now and urge them to oppose it. You can reach your Senators by calling the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 or email them here.

Here is a suggested message for you to personalize: “I am calling/writing to urge you to oppose a provision in the 2011 Omnibus Appropriations bill to block Guantanamo detainees from coming to the US mainland for prosecution. This provision would further erode the US government’s record on human rights. I support fair trials in US federal courts for Guantanamo detainees charged with crimes, and I oppose military commissions and indefinite detention, as these practices violate human rights. Thank you.”

Please tell us about the message you sent to your Senators in the comments!

The 9/11 Heath & Compensation Act would ensure medical treatment and compensation for 9/11 responders and other survivors.

In the morning of September 11 James Zadroga, an NYPD detective was driving home after an arraignment in the city. He was almost there when he turned on the radio, he grabbed a bag and rushed back to Manhattan, leaving his crying wife Rhonda who was seven months pregnant.

In the city he was assigned to a traffic post, but made his way to the World Trade Center, one among ten thousand who combed the wreckage of the North and South Towers for three weeks after the attacks.

So much is clear, so much is unclear. Why an otherwise healthy, fit, and strong NYPD detective, 216 pounds, six feet tall, who had never smoked, and never suffered from asthma, was forced to go sick in 2002, and why he died in 2006 – aged 34. His last year was spent tethered to an oxygen bottle, gasping for each breath.

For many the debris that swirled in the air in the wake of the twin towers has never settled. 3,000 people died and the list is still growing. We look to science and medicine for answers, we find doubt, we could have looked to law for justice, but we found fear. There are many open questions that may never be answered about 911 and its aftermath, but what we owe James Zadroga and his 4 year old daughter is not one of them. We should weigh a doubt upon a certainty and support the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

The act reopens the Victims’ Compensation Fund, ensures medical treatment and monitoring for first responders, and offers liability protections for New York City.

The bill passed the House last month and is fast tracked for action as soon as the Senate returns in November. Please ask your Senator to support the James Zadroga 911 Health and Compensation Act.